Aircraft type longest service career? [Archive]

Ken Duffey

November 29th 03, 12:01 AM

N329DF wrote:

> >Beaten easily by the C-47
>
> and a close 2nd, the T-6/SNJ/Harvard 1938-1995
> Matt Gunsch,
> A&P,IA,Private Pilot
> Riding member of the
> 2003 world champion drill team
> Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
> GWRRA,NRA,GOA

I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was the
Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of years.

As for the C-47 - I think the SAAF still operates them ??

Anyone still using the T-6 operationally (as opposed to
warbirds/private) ??

You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service career'
do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an airline or
serving with some organisation.

For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I think one is
still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down as a chase plane.

But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Ed Majden

November 29th 03, 12:43 AM

"Ken Duffey"
> For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I think one is
> still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down as a chase plane.
>
Ken:
I know the motto of the CAF is, "We fly old crates", but I think the T-6
Harvard is long retired unless it has been resurrected as our first line
interceptor. ;-) With budget cut backs, that may be a possibility! The
primary trainer is the CT-156 Harvard II which is definitely not the T-6!
The CL-41 Tutor has been replaced by the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer. The
Snowbird air demonstration team still fly the Tutor but they need
replacement. Basic flying training is now done by a civilian contractor,
Bombardier Ltd out of CFB Moose Jaw, Sask. Another result of trying to cut
costs!
Ed
RCAF/CAF retired.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 29th 03, 02:04 AM

Ken Duffey > wrote in
:

> I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was
> the Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of
> years.

Sure looks like the CAF had them going until last year
or so:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1g_e.htm

> You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service
> career' do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an
> airline or serving with some organisation.
>
> For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I
> think one is still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down
> as a chase plane.
>
> But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??

Both yes and no I guess, though my thought was "operational"
in that it has some sort of tactical role in an airforce.

Regards...

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 02:21 AM

"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Ken Duffey"
>> For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I think one is
>> still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down as a chase plane.
>>
>Ken:
> I know the motto of the CAF is, "We fly old crates", but I think the T-6
>Harvard is long retired unless it has been resurrected as our first line
>interceptor. ;-) With budget cut backs, that may be a possibility! The
>primary trainer is the CT-156 Harvard II which is definitely not the T-6!
>The CL-41 Tutor has been replaced by the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer. The
>Snowbird air demonstration team still fly the Tutor but they need
>replacement. Basic flying training is now done by a civilian contractor,
>Bombardier Ltd out of CFB Moose Jaw, Sask. Another result of trying to cut
>costs!
>Ed
>RCAF/CAF retired.
>

Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
--

-Gord.

Ed Majden

November 29th 03, 02:45 AM

"Gord Beaman" >
>
>
> Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
> vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?

Gord:
I suspect your right, forgot about them. They sometimes come up here
for airshows and are enjoyed very much. Thanks to our big spending
government our CAF still fly OLD crates. Example: The Herc, the Buffalo,
SeaKing etc. All need serious replacement before they drop out of the
skies!
Ed

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 02:52 AM

"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" >
>>
>>
>> Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
>> vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
>
>Gord:
> I suspect your right, forgot about them. They sometimes come up here
>for airshows and are enjoyed very much. Thanks to our big spending
>government our CAF still fly OLD crates. Example: The Herc, the Buffalo,
>SeaKing etc. All need serious replacement before they drop out of the
>skies!
>Ed
>

Certainly a lotta truth in them there words podner :)
--

-Gord.

Dudley Henriques

November 29th 03, 05:11 AM

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:TKTxb.517054$pl3.344659@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Gord Beaman" >
> >
> >
> > Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
> > vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
>
> Gord:
> I suspect your right, forgot about them. They sometimes come up here
> for airshows and are enjoyed very much. Thanks to our big spending
> government our CAF still fly OLD crates. Example: The Herc, the Buffalo,
> SeaKing etc. All need serious replacement before they drop out of the
> skies!
> Ed

Ed;

I flew an aerobatic eval flight on the Snowbirds #10 Tutor as the team's
guest at the Reading Air Show in 75. I'm not sure exactly where it is now,
but the last I heard from some of the old Snowbird alumni, it was still in
operation!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 05:57 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>
>"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
>news:TKTxb.517054$pl3.344659@pd7tw3no...
>>
>> "Gord Beaman" >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
>> > vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
>>
>> Gord:
>> I suspect your right, forgot about them. They sometimes come up here
>> for airshows and are enjoyed very much. Thanks to our big spending
>> government our CAF still fly OLD crates. Example: The Herc, the Buffalo,
>> SeaKing etc. All need serious replacement before they drop out of the
>> skies!
>> Ed
>
>Ed;
>
>I flew an aerobatic eval flight on the Snowbirds #10 Tutor as the team's
>guest at the Reading Air Show in 75. I'm not sure exactly where it is now,
>but the last I heard from some of the old Snowbird alumni, it was still in
>operation!!
>Dudley Henriques

Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
equipped with the Tutor until 1978.

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?

Ed Majden

November 29th 03, 06:02 AM

"Dudley Henriques" >
> I flew an aerobatic eval flight on the Snowbirds #10 Tutor as the team's
> guest at the Reading Air Show in 75. I'm not sure exactly where it is now,
> but the last I heard from some of the old Snowbird alumni, it was still in
> operation!!

Dudley:
The Snowbird Air Demonstration Team is stationed in Moose Jaw,
Saskatchewan. The Tutors that are still flying are probably all there.
They come out to 19 Wing, formally CFB Comox, each year for training. One
of the Tutors was traded for a Vampire which is now on display in one of the
hangers on the base. They don't keep it outside with the other display
aircraft as much of the Vampire airframe is wood so they want to keep it in
good shape. They are in the process of rebuilding a Spitfire for the air
museum also. The outside display includes a CF-100, CF-101, CF-104, T-33,
Argus, Tracker, Dakota and a Mig 21 which they got from the Czechs. Also
some choppers and others that I can't think of right now. My
brother-in-laws nephew was a pilot with the team for a couple of tours. He
flew CF-104's and finished off on the CF-18 when he got out to fly
commercial. I'm a retired Armament Systems Tech (Radar Systems). My
browser is not working right now but if you do a search for the Snowbird Air
Demonstation Team I'm sure you will come up with something. Also look for
19 Wing Comox or CFB Comox Air Museum.
Ed

Dudley Henriques

November 29th 03, 06:31 AM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
> >news:TKTxb.517054$pl3.344659@pd7tw3no...
> >>
> >> "Gord Beaman" >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
> >> > vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
> >>
> >> Gord:
> >> I suspect your right, forgot about them. They sometimes come up
here
> >> for airshows and are enjoyed very much. Thanks to our big spending
> >> government our CAF still fly OLD crates. Example: The Herc, the
Buffalo,
> >> SeaKing etc. All need serious replacement before they drop out of the
> >> skies!
> >> Ed
> >
> >Ed;
> >
> >I flew an aerobatic eval flight on the Snowbirds #10 Tutor as the team's
> >guest at the Reading Air Show in 75. I'm not sure exactly where it is
now,
> >but the last I heard from some of the old Snowbird alumni, it was still
in
> >operation!!
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
> equipped with the Tutor until 1978.
>
>
> -Gord.
>
> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> -Guess who?

Sorry Gordo, you're mistaken. I flew #10 Tutor on June 10th 1975 at the
Reading Air Show while a guest of the team for the weekend. Better check
your dates again. I'm not sure when they got the Tutors, but I can tell you
for certain that they had them when I made my flight with the team. They
also were using a T33 for support that weekend if this helps you date the
Tutor a bit closer.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

November 29th 03, 06:40 AM

I wonder about some of the old 75 team once in a while. They were a great
bunch. I remember Col O.B. Phillip and his daughter. Greg Bruneau and I
wrung the hell out of old #10 at Reading one Sunday afternoon between shows.
Moosejaw is a great ride through the plains of Saskatchewan. You can go for
miles out there without seeing a damn thing. Great country Canada, and fine
people.
Dudley
"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:cEWxb.518193$pl3.31677@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" >
> > I flew an aerobatic eval flight on the Snowbirds #10 Tutor as the team's
> > guest at the Reading Air Show in 75. I'm not sure exactly where it is
now,
> > but the last I heard from some of the old Snowbird alumni, it was still
in
> > operation!!
>
> Dudley:
> The Snowbird Air Demonstration Team is stationed in Moose Jaw,
> Saskatchewan. The Tutors that are still flying are probably all there.
> They come out to 19 Wing, formally CFB Comox, each year for training. One
> of the Tutors was traded for a Vampire which is now on display in one of
the
> hangers on the base. They don't keep it outside with the other display
> aircraft as much of the Vampire airframe is wood so they want to keep it
in
> good shape. They are in the process of rebuilding a Spitfire for the air
> museum also. The outside display includes a CF-100, CF-101, CF-104, T-33,
> Argus, Tracker, Dakota and a Mig 21 which they got from the Czechs. Also
> some choppers and others that I can't think of right now. My
> brother-in-laws nephew was a pilot with the team for a couple of tours.
He
> flew CF-104's and finished off on the CF-18 when he got out to fly
> commercial. I'm a retired Armament Systems Tech (Radar Systems). My
> browser is not working right now but if you do a search for the Snowbird
Air
> Demonstation Team I'm sure you will come up with something. Also look for
> 19 Wing Comox or CFB Comox Air Museum.
> Ed
>
>

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 07:01 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>> Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
>> equipped with the Tutor until 1978.
>>
>>
>> -Gord.
>>
>> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
>> single factor producing rotational velocity"
>> -Guess who?
>
>
>Sorry Gordo, you're mistaken. I flew #10 Tutor on June 10th 1975 at the
>Reading Air Show while a guest of the team for the weekend. Better check
>your dates again. I'm not sure when they got the Tutors, but I can tell you
>for certain that they had them when I made my flight with the team. They
>also were using a T33 for support that weekend if this helps you date the
>Tutor a bit closer.
>Dudley Henriques

Well, it's certainly possible that my source is
incorrect...here's the URL:
http://www.snowbirds.forces.gc.ca/history_e.asp

And here's an excerpt from that URL:
"431 Fighter Squadron formed at RCAF Station Bagotville on 18
January 1954 in order to display the Sabre to the public at
airshows. They were disbanded on 1 October 1954. They were
re-activated on 1 April 1978 as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron,
more commonly known as the Snowbirds, flying the CT-114 Tutor".

So I don't know more than this...it's odd that their official web
site would have an error, unless the Tutor was flown as part of
the Snowbirds while attached to some other unit back then. I
believe that the T-33 (painted solid red) was part of the Golden
Hawks Team (F-86 Sabres - and possibly the Snowbirds Team as
well) and was known as "the Red Knight"

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?

Ed Majden

November 29th 03, 08:47 AM

"Gord Beaman" >
> Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
> equipped with the Tutor until 1978.
>
Gord:
The first jet RCAF demonstration team was the Blue Devils flying the
Vampire
(1949-51)
RCAF No. 1 Air Division in Europe were called the Sky Lancers flying
Sabres

Back in Canada the Golden Hawks formed flying the F-86 Sabre 1959. This air
demonstration team disbanded and was resurrected as the Golden Centennaires
for Canada's Centenial Year in 1967 They flew Tutor jet trainers. They
reformed in 1970 at CFB Moose Jaw as the Snow Birds Air Demonstration Team
431 Squadron also flying Tutor jets to this day.
During WWII 431 was a bomber squadron flying Wellingtons, Halifax and
Lancasters 1942 - 1945. 431 Squadron was reformed in January 1954 as an
interim F-86 Squadron awaiting production of the CF-100. It was disbanded
in Oct 1954. Reformed in Moose Jaw in 1970 becoming the Snow Birds Air
Demonstration Team in 1971. Hope I have the dates right!
Ed

Cub Driver

November 29th 03, 10:13 AM

>Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
>vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?

Gee, I thought he meant the Chinese Air Force!

(The Confederate Air Force is no longer. To be honest, I forget what
the substitute PC name is. Not Coalition Air Force, I don't suppose.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Ken Duffey

November 29th 03, 12:03 PM

Ed Majden wrote:

> "Ken Duffey"
> > For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I think one is
> > still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down as a chase plane.
> >
> Ken:
> I know the motto of the CAF is, "We fly old crates", but I think the T-6
> Harvard is long retired unless it has been resurrected as our first line
> interceptor. ;-) With budget cut backs, that may be a possibility! The
> primary trainer is the CT-156 Harvard II which is definitely not the T-6!
> The CL-41 Tutor has been replaced by the CT-155 Hawk jet trainer. The
> Snowbird air demonstration team still fly the Tutor but they need
> replacement. Basic flying training is now done by a civilian contractor,
> Bombardier Ltd out of CFB Moose Jaw, Sask. Another result of trying to cut
> costs!
> Ed
> RCAF/CAF retired.

Ooops!

Sorry - by CAF - I meant the Commemorative (formerly Confederate) Air Force !!!!

I was trying to point out the difficulty of defining the word 'service'.

Best wishes

Ken

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN

November 29th 03, 12:27 PM

In article >,
Ken Duffey > wrote:
>N329DF wrote:
>
>> >Beaten easily by the C-47
>>
>> and a close 2nd, the T-6/SNJ/Harvard 1938-1995
>
>I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was the
>Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of years.

Canberra's still in service, and not showing any likelyhood of going
away soon, so it is still working its way up the list.
There's also the one Meteor still in use - Martin-Baker's "T8"
hybrid (F8 wings and engines, T7 fuselage IIRC), so you could,
at a pinch, claim that the Gloster Meteor has been in service
since 1943 (and no jet *could* have been operational longer ;)

>You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service career'
>do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an airline or
>serving with some organisation.
>
>For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I think one is
>still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down as a chase plane.
>
>But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??

If it's "operational, front-line military service" then the Canberra
probably does win out.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

Dudley Henriques

November 29th 03, 02:03 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >> Absolutely amazing!...how did you manage that dud?...they weren't
> >> equipped with the Tutor until 1978.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >>
> >> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> >> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> >> -Guess who?
> >
> >
> >Sorry Gordo, you're mistaken. I flew #10 Tutor on June 10th 1975 at the
> >Reading Air Show while a guest of the team for the weekend. Better check
> >your dates again. I'm not sure when they got the Tutors, but I can tell
you
> >for certain that they had them when I made my flight with the team. They
> >also were using a T33 for support that weekend if this helps you date the
> >Tutor a bit closer.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Well, it's certainly possible that my source is
> incorrect...here's the URL:
> http://www.snowbirds.forces.gc.ca/history_e.asp
>
> And here's an excerpt from that URL:
> "431 Fighter Squadron formed at RCAF Station Bagotville on 18
> January 1954 in order to display the Sabre to the public at
> airshows. They were disbanded on 1 October 1954. They were
> re-activated on 1 April 1978 as 431 Air Demonstration Squadron,
> more commonly known as the Snowbirds, flying the CT-114 Tutor".
>
> So I don't know more than this...it's odd that their official web
> site would have an error, unless the Tutor was flown as part of
> the Snowbirds while attached to some other unit back then. I
> believe that the T-33 (painted solid red) was part of the Golden
> Hawks Team (F-86 Sabres - and possibly the Snowbirds Team as
> well) and was known as "the Red Knight"
>
>
> -Gord.
>
> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> -Guess who?

The team was officially "reformed" on April 1st, 78 as the 431st ADS, but
this had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Tutor. In fact, it was
the existence of the toot that prompted Col Phillip to form the team several
years earlier . I don't believe the team would ever have been formed had the
toot not been available, as budget restraints have always been a problem.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

monkey

November 29th 03, 06:03 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message >...
> Ken Duffey > wrote in
> :
>
> > I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was
> > the Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of
> > years.
>
> Sure looks like the CAF had them going until last year
> or so:
>
> http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1g_e.htm
>
>
> > You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service
> > career' do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an
> > airline or serving with some organisation.
> >
> > For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I
> > think one is still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down
> > as a chase plane.
> >
> > But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??
>
> Both yes and no I guess, though my thought was "operational"
> in that it has some sort of tactical role in an airforce.
>
>
> Regards...

Hi

I am a pilot based at 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta. This wing still
flies the T-33, which should clear up some of your differences of
opinion.

Tarver Engineering

November 29th 03, 06:25 PM

Ken Duffey

November 29th 03, 08:04 PM

monkey wrote:

> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message >...
> > Ken Duffey > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > I think we agreed last time that the longest OPERATIONAL jet was
> > > the Lockheed T-33 - which just beat the Canberra by a couple of
> > > years.
> >
> > Sure looks like the CAF had them going until last year
> > or so:
> >
> > http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1g_e.htm
> >
> >
> > > You have to be very precise with your definition - by 'service
> > > career' do you mean with a military arm ?? or in service with an
> > > airline or serving with some organisation.
> > >
> > > For example the T-6 is still 'serving' with the CAF - and I
> > > think one is still used (in service) by the RAE at Boscombe Down
> > > as a chase plane.
> > >
> > > But would they count as still having a 'service career' ??
> >
> > Both yes and no I guess, though my thought was "operational"
> > in that it has some sort of tactical role in an airforce.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> Hi
>
> I am a pilot based at 4 Wing Cold Lake in Alberta. This wing still
> flies the T-33, which should clear up some of your differences of
> opinion.

OK - The Lockheed T-33 takes the prize as the JET aircraft type with the longest service career.

First flight of the T-33 was March 1948 - and it is still IN SERVICE.
First flight of the Canberra was 13 May 1949 - and it is still in front line service (as the PR-9).

But the original poster did not specify jet types - just 'aircraft type' - so that still leaves the title
open for the DC-3/C-47 and/or the T-6 Harvard/Texan.

Anyone have a first flight date for these two types - and can prove that they are still in 'service' ??

Although we still haven't defined 'service' - are we talking still serving with a military force - and, if
so, does the Commemorative Air Force count ??

Does the SAAF (South African AF) still operate C-47's ??

Does the UK Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE - which still operates a Harvard AFAIK) count as a military
force ?

Discuss......

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 08:07 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>The team was officially "reformed" on April 1st, 78 as the 431st ADS, but
>this had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Tutor. In fact, it was
>the existence of the toot that prompted Col Phillip to form the team several
>years earlier . I don't believe the team would ever have been formed had the
>toot not been available, as budget restraints have always been a problem.
>Dudley Henriques

Yes, it does seem that I was in error having misinterpreted the
information on the Snowbirds' website (which was misleading imo)
I'll need to be more careful.

So that makes the score 'one for you' & 'what' for
me?...considerable in any case...

-Gord
"Are you trying to tell me that the
rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
-Guess who

Dudley Henriques

November 29th 03, 10:22 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >The team was officially "reformed" on April 1st, 78 as the 431st ADS, but
> >this had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the Tutor. In fact, it
was
> >the existence of the toot that prompted Col Phillip to form the team
several
> >years earlier . I don't believe the team would ever have been formed had
the
> >toot not been available, as budget restraints have always been a problem.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Yes, it does seem that I was in error having misinterpreted the
> information on the Snowbirds' website (which was misleading imo)
> I'll need to be more careful.
>
> So that makes the score 'one for you' & 'what' for
> me?...considerable in any case...
>
>
> -Gord
> "Are you trying to tell me that the
> rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
> -Guess who

Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as correct
then as I am now.
Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller is
directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure. That wasn't the
context of what I saying at all, unless you have an agenda that requires you
to believe that....like you do apparently.
I'll go over it one more time so that you and anyone else who cares to
comment can do so.
The discussion where this came up was directly concerned with a bail out by
two people from a P51D where a snap roll caused by an engine seizure could
have been a factor in throwing the occupants from the cockpit.
Knowing the 51 as I do, I suggested if you remember, that the snap might not
have been caused by the seizure. I had a reason for suggesting this. The
24D50 Ham Standard on this airplane has a constant speed pitch range of 42
degrees. In a bail out preparation under stress assuming the prop set at
some degree of cruise and under normal aerodynamic load for that
configuration, the reduction of manifold pressure without changing the prop
setting would cause the prop to begin a pitch change to maintain RPM toward
full increase. You were absolutely correct when you said that manifold
pressure didn't control rotational velocity, but you failed to consider as I
had considered, the governor high RPM pitch limit for this propeller. It's
absolutely true that the rotational velocity of the prop will remain the
same at any RPM within it's constant speed range, but with the power brought
back to idle, it's entirely possible that the prop would exceed it's high
RPM pitch limiter on the governor and at that point the RPM would DECREASE.
It would be this decrease in RPM and NOT the decrease in manifold pressure
that would cause lesser forces in an engine seizure.
The post where you inserted yourself into the discussion about RPM and
manifold pressure wasn't a friendly insertion. In fact, it was a lot like
your insertion here about my flying with the Snowbirds. It was an obvious
implication that I am nothing less than a liar of the first order in the
Snowbird case, and that I needed a lecture from you on rotational velocity.
I believe your opening statement about the prop was "You do.......well I
don't!!!
If you remember, I did everything I could to avoid lecturing you back, since
I know your background is sound on these matters and you don't need a
lecture from me any more than I need one from you.
I tried subtlety to suggest we were dealing with a constant speed prop,
hoping you would finally get the hint about the governor, but you took this
to mean that since a fixed pitch propeller is the only prop that is DIRECTLY
linked to manifold pressure, and as such exhibits an increase and decrease
in rpm as the result of power change as opposed to the constant speed which
of course doesn't.......unless the governor limits are exceeded :-)
I had made your point for you. Sorry, that wasn't the case at all.
My point was valid then and it's valid now. FWIW, you also were correct as
far as you went with your explanation on momentum and constant speed props;
but I say again, in discussing RPM and a constant speed prop like the 24D50
on the Mustang, you must include the governor high RPM limit or the momentum
will INDEED change as power is reduced below this limit......just like a
fixed pitch propeller; and THIS was the scenario that was being discussed in
the P51 bailout situation, NOT that power controls momentum per se'. I would
close my remarks to you on this by telling you that there is always an area
on Usenet for misunderstanding to occur, and you very well might have
misunderstood what I was saying because I was not clear enough. If that was
the case, I apologize for creating that misunderstanding, and I sincerely
hope that this post clears the air on the matter.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[email protected]

November 29th 03, 11:39 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>> "Are you trying to tell me that the
>> rotational (energy) of a propeller is
>> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
>> -Guess who
>
>Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as correct
>then as I am now.

Jesus Christ...those ARE YOUR WORDS!!...not mine, you ASKED ME
that question!...

Christ man, there's no dishonour in making a mistake. There
certainly is dishonour in denying your words then ascribing them
to someone else!!..(which is exactly what you just did).

>Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller is
>directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure.

Of course...so why did you ask that stupid question above then?

I swear that If you try to DISOWN your words again that I'll
repost the whole sorry mess.

I'll leave it to you now to see whose arse is hanging out in the
sunlight here...

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Keith Willshaw

November 30th 03, 12:09 AM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>

> "Are you trying to tell me that the
> rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
>

If he was he was right, the rotational energy
is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.

The power being delivered is a different matter of course
and depends on factors such as propellor pitch, air
density and of course angular velocity.

Keith

Dudley Henriques

November 30th 03, 01:25 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
>
> > "Are you trying to tell me that the
> > rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> > the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
> >
>
>
> If he was he was right, the rotational energy
> is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
> and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.
>
> The power being delivered is a different matter of course
> and depends on factors such as propellor pitch, air
> density and of course angular velocity.
>
> Keith

The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting to
someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read the
thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was assuming
he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I was
saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the governor
of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were discussing. I
was wrong in assuming this.
The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem seems
to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure fiction
I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have made
it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as I
was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
actually mentioned it.
In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as I
was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it very
well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic loads
on the prop as well.
With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be at
61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm very
sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
Such is Usenet!! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

November 30th 03, 01:40 AM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >> "Are you trying to tell me that the
> >> rotational (energy) of a propeller is
> >> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
> >> -Guess who
> >
> >Why yes, that's EXACTLY what I was trying to tell you, and I was as
correct
> >then as I am now.
>
> Jesus Christ...those ARE YOUR WORDS!!...not mine, you ASKED ME
> that question!...
>
> Christ man, there's no dishonour in making a mistake. There
> certainly is dishonour in denying your words then ascribing them
> to someone else!!..(which is exactly what you just did).
>
>
> >Any high school student knows that the rotational energy of a propeller
is
> >directly tied to it's rpm and not it's manifold pressure.
>
> Of course...so why did you ask that stupid question above then?
>
> I swear that If you try to DISOWN your words again that I'll
> repost the whole sorry mess.
>
> I'll leave it to you now to see whose arse is hanging out in the
> sunlight here...
>
> --Gord.

I believe if you post the entire thread and allow everyone to view it in
it's complete context and entirety , (although in my opinion it would bore
the hell out of everybody, including you and me :-); it will become apparent
how this happened, and that BOTH of us were at fault in creating this
unfortunate episode. If you think it would be of interest to the group, or
that I would fear seeing it posted for all to see, by all means post the
thread.
If not, perhaps we can end this useless and non productive banter; realize
that we had a total misunderstanding and lack of communication and try
normal communication again for a change.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[email protected]

November 30th 03, 02:46 AM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>
>
>> "Are you trying to tell me that the
>> rotational (energy) of a propeller is
>> the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?"
>>
>
>
>If he was he was right, the rotational energy
>is simply a product of angular velocity and mass
>and is the same in coarse pitch, fine pitch or a vacuum.
>
--cut--

>Keith
>
Well of course It is and I was...Dudley got all bent out of shape
and sort of lost it when I told him that and he sent the above
question...

Christ, he now intimates that **I** authored this question.

Miserable SOB..

He had some harebrained idea that a whole bunch of engine power
would add to the prop rotational energy, even though the RPM
didn't change. (constant speed prop)

The engine seized on this P-51 and we were discussing whether the
resultant energy release would possibly toss the pilot out...

It would seem that Henriques just cannot admit his error, poor
schmuck...I'd certainly hate to be that insecure, must feel
terrible.

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

[email protected]

November 30th 03, 03:00 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
>search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
>carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
>believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
>misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting to
>someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read the
>thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
>power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was assuming
>he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I was
>saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the governor
>of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
>writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
>were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were discussing. I
>was wrong in assuming this.
>The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem seems
>to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure fiction
>I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have made
>it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as I
>was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
>actually mentioned it.
>In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
>rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as I
>was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it very
>well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic loads
>on the prop as well.
>With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
>forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be at
>61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
>limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
>pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm very
>sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
>prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
>too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
>Such is Usenet!! :-)
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>

What a classic expert at obfuscation you are Henriques...It's
actually funny. You're so good that I suspect that you've
convinced yourself that you're right here...sad indeed.

You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
sure few on here would deny.

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Dudley Henriques

November 30th 03, 04:07 AM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
> >The above is absolutely correct......... BUT.........Please do a google
> >search for (p51 engine seizure "dudley henriques") and read the thread
> >carefully, especially from the point where Gordo enters it under me. I
> >believe it will be instantly apparent that the reason for this
> >misunderstanding is obvious, and it's probably my fault. I was reacting
to
> >someone I don't particularly like and I was mincing words. If you read
the
> >thread carefully, you will see that what I was discussing with him about
> >power and rpm was missing a main ingredient; that being what I was
assuming
> >he knew, when in actuality, I had completely omitted it from anything I
was
> >saying to him. That ingredient is the high rpm prop limiter on the
governor
> >of the 24D50 Ham Standard used on the Mustang. If you read what I was
> >writing carefully, I believe you will realize that I was assuming both of
> >were aware of the limiter function in relation to what we were
discussing. I
> >was wrong in assuming this.
> >The facts are quite simple. Both Gordo and I know it. The only problem
seems
> >to be that he thinks it was he who "taught" me this, and that's pure
fiction
> >I can assure you. But the fault remains with me I think. I should have
made
> >it perfectly clear to him from the beginning about the prop governor, as
I
> >was considering it's function in every post I made to him, but I never
> >actually mentioned it.
> >In summation, it's 101 that rpm and not power is directly related to
> >rotational mass/velocity/inertia with a constant speed prop....UNLESS as
I
> >was trying to say, the power is back past the high rpm limit stop as it
very
> >well is at idle power on the Mustang. This assumes normal aerodynamic
loads
> >on the prop as well.
> >With this in play, it becomes totally correct to say that the rotational
> >forces in play at 15 inches on this airplane are less then they would be
at
> >61 inches, or anywhere else for that matter within the 42 degree pitch
> >limits where a power change or a change in aerodynamic load would cause a
> >pitch change to maintain a constant set RPM on this specific prop. I'm
very
> >sorry if what I said was misleading to Gordo. I should have discussed the
> >prop governor with him from the onset. The plain truth is that I was just
> >too ****ed off at him and just plain missed it.
> >Such is Usenet!! :-)
> >Dudley Henriques
> >International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> >Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> >For personal email, please replace
> >the z's with e's.
> >dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
>
> What a classic expert at obfuscation you are Henriques...It's
> actually funny. You're so good that I suspect that you've
> convinced yourself that you're right here...sad indeed.

..........well, actually no I'm not convinced I was right , as I so obviously
said in the post above. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it was me who
caused most of this misunderstanding. Is there something about that you
don't understand?
>
> You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
> sure few on here would deny.

Well, so far at least Gordo, you're a long list of ONE anyway!!
I sincerely hope that in the six years I've been posting here I haven't
affected others as I seem to have affected you. We'll just have to let
others speak for themselves I guess. Who knows, you might just be
right.......then again.......I hope not anyway :-)

I know you don't believe this Gordo ole' boy, but it genuinely grieves me
the way things have turned out between you and me. If you actually knew me
as well as you think you know me, you'd know what a total pussycat I really
am, and how totally wrong your misconception of me not dealing with mistakes
is in reality. (I'm assuming of course that you simply have a misconception
and that what's going on isn't deliberate )
The truth is that I've lived through an entire career in aviation dealing
with mistakes; (mine and others) studying them as they relate to flight
safety. I've made many mistakes in my life Gordo, and I'm still here because
I faced them head on, recognized them and corrected them, not by avoiding
them as you suggest.
I've even tried in vain in this post to relate that the fault for this
misunderstanding might have been mine, but it seems that's not in your
agenda is it? :-)
I keep showing your posts about me to my wife. She says the same
thing......it's just sad....and so unnecessary.....and a waste.
All the best to you regardless,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

November 30th 03, 04:17 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...

>>You're also a classic windbag, in a class by yourself, which I'm
sure few on here would deny.

God Gordo, I'm sorry. MY MISTAKE!!!!! :-) I just realized I missed Tarver
for your list. That's two. I'll let the implication of this just pass
without amplification if you don't mind. :-)
All the best,
DH

Vicente Vazquez

November 30th 03, 04:46 AM

Ken Duffey > wrote in message >...
> As for the C-47 - I think the SAAF still operates them ??

Dunno about SAAF, but Paraguay's Air Force still operates the C-47.

Cheers,

Vicente

Matt Wiser

November 30th 03, 04:03 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:
>
> The B2/PR9 Canberra?
> (FF 1949, entered service 1951, still in service?)
>
>

P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican Republic
AF until 1984.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Tex Houston

November 30th 03, 04:19 PM

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fca1555$1@bg2....
>
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:
> >
> > The B2/PR9 Canberra?
> > (FF 1949, entered service 1951, still in service?)
> >
> >
>
> P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican
Republic
> AF until 1984.

The last B-52H was delivered in October 1962...care to venture another
guess?

Tex

Cub Driver

November 30th 03, 08:20 PM

>P/F-51 Mustang. 1943-84. Last used as frontline equipment by Dominican Republic
>AF until 1984.

Super Cub. Even if you regard it as distinct from the J-3, the PA-18
went into service with the USAF in 1950. The Israeli defense forces
sold off their last dozen PA-18s last year, for a service life of 52
years even if no other military is presently using it.

Isn't it amazing? In WWI, fighter aircraft went through four distinct
generations. Now we have planes lasting a half-century.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

JSH5176

December 1st 03, 05:14 AM

How about the old C-47 ? It seems it was designed in the 30's and is still
flying in some parts of the world.

Steven P. McNicoll

December 1st 03, 12:47 PM

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
> vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
>

Commemorative Air Force

[email protected]

December 1st 03, 04:23 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Ed, I suspect that Ken is referring to the Confederate Air Force
>> vice Canadian Armed Forces. Yes?
>>
>
>Commemorative Air Force
>
Of course, I had forgotten about the change there...thanks.
--

-Gord.

Matt Wiser

December 1st 03, 07:12 PM

(JSH5176) wrote:
>How about the old C-47 ? It seems it was designed
>in the 30's and is still
>flying in some parts of the world.
Orignial DST, which became the DC-3, first designed in 1936. Even with
the various Turbo-Dakotas around, still quite a few old C-47s still around.
Even the Colombian AF and Salvadorian AF stil fly AC-47s.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Steven P. McNicoll

December 1st 03, 07:20 PM

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fcb933d$1@bg2....
>
> Orignial DST, which became the DC-3, first designed in 1936.
>

It made it's first flight in December 1935, methinks design began a bit
before that.

Eugene Griessel

December 1st 03, 09:08 PM

Ken Duffey > wrote in message >...
> monkey wrote:

> Does the SAAF (South African AF) still operate C-47's ??

Sort of. They fly the C-47TP which has turboprops, a plug in the
fuselage of about a metre in length, updated avionics, higher all-up
weight, speed, etc. etc.

I used to have all the specs to hand but seemed to have mislaid them.

Ken Duffey

December 1st 03, 10:55 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> news:3fcb933d$1@bg2....
> >
> > Orignial DST, which became the DC-3, first designed in 1936.
> >
>
> It made it's first flight in December 1935, methinks design began a bit
> before that.

I have had a quick check through last week's issue of Flight International
- which has a comprehensive Directory of the World's Air Forces.

Among the CURRENT operators of the DC-3/C-47 are :-

Bolivia (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
Colombia (3/1 x C-47/C-117D)
El Salvador (3/3 x C-47/Turbo AC-47)
Guatemala (4 x Basler Turbo 67)
Haiti (3 x C-47)
Honduras (6 x C-47)
Madagascar (1 x C-47)
Mali (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
Mauritania (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
Paraguay (1 x C-47)
South Africa (12 x C-47/C-47TP)
Taiwan(5 x C-47)
Thailand (6 x Basler Turbo 67)
Venezuela (1 x C-47)

That's 51 - yes FIFTY ONE - C-47's (or derivatives thereof) still in
operational service as at December 2003.

So, I hereby declare that the AIRCRAFT TYPE LONGEST SERVICE CAREER award
goes to the good old DC-3/Dakota/C-47/Basler 67.

With a first flight date of December 1935 it is still in service with the
above air arms in December 2003 - so with 68 years it wins hands down !!

BTW, I found the following current operators of the T-33:-

Bolivia (19 x AT-33/T-33) (note - ex Canadian, recently upgraded !!!!!!!!)
Ecuador (22 x AT-33)
Iran (5 x T-33)
Mexico (30 x AT-33)
Paraguay (4 x AT-33)

So, with a first flight date of 1948, I hereby declare that the Lockheed
T-33 Shooting Star takes the prize as the LONGEST SERVING JET AIRCRAFT.

Ken

PS - To the 4 Wing Canadian pilot - the Flight Directory does not list any
T-33 in service with Canada - maybe you ought to write to them and ask
where they got their info??

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Cub Driver

December 1st 03, 11:12 PM

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>Even the Colombian AF and Salvadorian AF stil fly AC-47s.

There's a DC-3 at Hampton Airport. I love to watch it do a wheelie on
landing--if the pilot ever three-points, I've never seen him do so.

Regardless of the wind, he takes off to the south. He's heading for
Nashua, I think, and he doesn't want to spend the gasoline it would
take to head north (the usual runway at 7B3) and then change his
heading.

Expensive hobby!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Dudley Henriques

December 1st 03, 11:33 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> > wrote:
>
> >Even the Colombian AF and Salvadorian AF stil fly AC-47s.
>
> There's a DC-3 at Hampton Airport. I love to watch it do a wheelie on
> landing--if the pilot ever three-points, I've never seen him do so.
>
> Regardless of the wind, he takes off to the south. He's heading for
> Nashua, I think, and he doesn't want to spend the gasoline it would
> take to head north (the usual runway at 7B3) and then change his
> heading.
>
> Expensive hobby!

That's the proper method to land the Gooney, and the Twin Beech also...tail
low on the mains reducing the sink rate in the flare....most tailwheel prop
fighters as well.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dave Holford

December 2nd 03, 03:51 AM

Ken Duffey wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> > news:3fcb933d$1@bg2....
> > >
> > > Orignial DST, which became the DC-3, first designed in 1936.
> > >
> >
> > It made it's first flight in December 1935, methinks design began a bit
> > before that.
>
> I have had a quick check through last week's issue of Flight International
> - which has a comprehensive Directory of the World's Air Forces.
>
> Among the CURRENT operators of the DC-3/C-47 are :-
>
> Bolivia (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
> Colombia (3/1 x C-47/C-117D)
> El Salvador (3/3 x C-47/Turbo AC-47)
> Guatemala (4 x Basler Turbo 67)
> Haiti (3 x C-47)
> Honduras (6 x C-47)
> Madagascar (1 x C-47)
> Mali (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
> Mauritania (1 x Basler Turbo 67)
> Paraguay (1 x C-47)
> South Africa (12 x C-47/C-47TP)
> Taiwan(5 x C-47)
> Thailand (6 x Basler Turbo 67)
> Venezuela (1 x C-47)
>
> That's 51 - yes FIFTY ONE - C-47's (or derivatives thereof) still in
> operational service as at December 2003.
>
> So, I hereby declare that the AIRCRAFT TYPE LONGEST SERVICE CAREER award
> goes to the good old DC-3/Dakota/C-47/Basler 67.
>
> With a first flight date of December 1935 it is still in service with the
> above air arms in December 2003 - so with 68 years it wins hands down !!
>
> BTW, I found the following current operators of the T-33:-
>
> Bolivia (19 x AT-33/T-33) (note - ex Canadian, recently upgraded !!!!!!!!)
> Ecuador (22 x AT-33)
> Iran (5 x T-33)
> Mexico (30 x AT-33)
> Paraguay (4 x AT-33)
>
> So, with a first flight date of 1948, I hereby declare that the Lockheed
> T-33 Shooting Star takes the prize as the LONGEST SERVING JET AIRCRAFT.
>
> Ken
>
> PS - To the 4 Wing Canadian pilot - the Flight Directory does not list any
> T-33 in service with Canada - maybe you ought to write to them and ask
> where they got their info??
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
> Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
> Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Interesting that a magazine would have more current information than the
operator?

According to the DND website, although the T-33 has retired from
operational service Four aircraft will remain at Cold Lake's Aerospace
Engineering
Test Establishment for ongoing test support assets.

Dave